Posted
by
Soulskill
on Monday September 06, 2010 @02:10PM
from the clean-out-your-desk dept.

Stoobalou writes "A member of Iceland's parliament and prominent organizer for whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has turned on the site's spokesman, Julian Assange, urging him to step down over rape allegations made against him in Sweden. Birgitta Jonsdottir told news site The Daily Beast that she did not believe Assange's repeated assertion that the allegations of rape and molestation made against him were part of a US-backed smear campaign to distract attention from documents posted on the site laying bare US involvement in the war in Afghanistan and further promised revelations."

When somebody is doing something that is not wrong, but offends, they attack him, till everybody turns against him. Or possibly her. Just ask the lady from Georgia.

Now I can recognize how terrible it is to pretend that the king can do no wrong, or to let the king get away with all sorts of crap, but it is equally wrong from the other way, to take even the slightest, flimsiest excuse and use it to tear down a person in authority.

I can't I know what the exact charges/circumstances are fo rin Assange's case. But i can say that the legal definition of rape changes nation to nation, so it would be nice to have the actual details of the situation. Heck in Israel you can be charged with rape for lying to a woman, or misrepresenting your marital status to get laid. I have friends that qualify to go to jail in Israel - here they are just being douchebags.

It's quite simple: one of the cases involves the woman accusing him of sabotaging the condom he used, leading to it rupturing and thus exposing her to potential STDs (HIV was mentioned).

The other woman, he fucked without a condom even though she explicitly asked him not to. The woman herself don't even consider it rape, but the police did and ran with it. When her legal counsel was asked about why he was pursuing a case when the woman in question didn't consider it rape, his explanation was that she wasn't

In a lot of US states, it's rape if you pretend, to the person you're having sex with, to be married them, aka, if you trick them with a fake marriage. Apparently this has happened enough there's a law about it.(1)

I discovered this oddity while arguing online, correctly, that lying to, or even impersonating someone, does not make it rape.

Turns out, because of how the law is written, probably unintentionally, impersonating someone's spouse manages to fall under the law. 'Pretending to be a specific differe

"And he's a classic Aussie in the sense that he's a bit of a male chauvinist."

You (ok, they) speak of a country where my state member is female, my federal state member is female, the premier of my state is female, the Prime Minster is female (currently), the state governor is female, the governor general is female, and we report to the Queen.

Odd position for a country of male chauvinists to be in, wouldn't you say?

In my close circle I witnessed the "work" of two psychopathic women, so my faith is somewhat shaken. However, you must understand that I am not saying that women are worse than men. In fact, my opinion is that all humans independent of sex could do exactly the same amount of grief.

Raping someone is usually done by males.Accusing an innocent about rape is usually done by females.

Isn't crying "rape" such an awesome tool for character assassination? You don't have to be a bad person at all. You could be the most saintly person in the world, but as long as I find a female or maybe a little boy to claim you did something vague, I can ruin the rest of your entire life.

Isn't crying "rape" such an awesome tool for character assassination? You don't have to be a bad person at all. You could be the most saintly person in the world, but as long as I find a female or maybe a little boy to claim you did something vague, I can ruin the rest of your entire life.

I'm all for rapists being punished. However I also believe a woman who knowingly falsely accuses a man of rape should have to serve the maximum sentence he would have served if convicted. If this were enforced, I think you'd see a huge reduction in the number of rape allegations....and for those feminists who cry foul, I'm not suggesting that if the man isn't convicted the woman should be - I'm only talking about applying this to blatant false accusation.

I'm all for rapists being punished. However I also believe a woman who knowingly falsely accuses a man of rape should have to serve the maximum sentence he would have served if convicted. If this were enforced, I think you'd see a huge reduction in the number of rape allegations....and for those feminists who cry foul, I'm not suggesting that if the man isn't convicted the woman should be - I'm only talking about applying this to blatant false accusation.

The problem is generally you only know an accusation is blatantly false if the woman recants; which they are a lot less likely to do if they know it will mean years and years of jail time.

That's a silly as saying that we shouldn't make rape a crime because it encourages to rapist to then kill the victim to cover it up. Same goes for robbery or any other crime where escalation can cover it up.

There are times when it can be proven a woman has made up a rape allegation. It does not always involve the woman confessing. Those women should be prosecuted harshly as they are attempting to do serious harm to the man they accuse.

As for women being less willing to retract the claim, that may be true in

Someone on the Internet claiming to be only 15 told me a story last night to the effect that Birgitta Jonsdottir raped him. If this is true, it could be said that Birgitta Jonsdottir is a child rapist. I'm not sure that a potential child rapist like Birgitta Jonsdottir has the authority to speak on allegations of molestation. Indeed, Birgitta Jonsdottir may be trying to deflect attention from the child rape she could have engaged in. Child rapists, as Birgitta Jonsdottir may be, should step down from any position of responsibility or trust.

Anyone else here on/. heard of anyone else she may have raped, especially someone under 18? If we have two accusations of child rape, then it seems appropriate to investigate Birgitta Jonsdottir for child rape, and to drown out all relevant news about her or her organisation in the media while the question of whether Birgitta Jonsdottir is a child rapist is carefully considered.

Iceland has a legal age of consent at 15 years. So you can only accuse her of regular rape.

That's what's so great about setting arbitrary lines in the sand: even if she's not legally a child rapist in her own country, in the eyes of America and much of the developed world, she'd be a child rapist. (Not in England, mind. In England, a person must have a penis to be capable of rape. Ah, Lady Justice, you blind thing.)

But, now I think about it, the boy actually said he was 14. Possibly 13. Sometimes it's hard to recall things precisely on the Internet so I'd better play it on the safe side and say h

They've already said they've withdrawn the charge of rape http://www.thelocal.se/28504/20100821 [thelocal.se], and are now only pursuing him for the molestation charge -- which in and of itself is a charged statement. The sex was said to be consensual and that the molestation charge hinges on weather or not knew the condom broke during intercourse and if it was intentional or not.

So, why does/. continue to perpetuate the assertion that he's being persued with a 'rape' charge?

You can't say 'Only do X', allow the other person to do Y, and then whinge about consent. Consent is a real-time thing. You don't want something to happen, attempt to stop it. If you made no attempt to stop it, uh, you consented.(1)

I swear, some people seem to live in a universe where 'consent' literally means 'asking permission', which makes me seriously wonder how they think sex works. 'I'm going to move my hand up tw

There is a bit of a problem with not enough information about this case, so I'll try to summary what I know so far.

1: Two women who had sex with Assange went to the police and were adviced to file charges of rape2: A prosecutor releases the accusations publicly to the press (not a common thing here in Sweden afaik)3: The case is withdrawn because they realize Assange cannot be nailed for rape. The remaining charge is something akin to sexual harassment.4: The rape charges are revived5:...6: Profit?

No seriously I'm starting to wonder what the fuck is up with the swedish legal system.

There is a bit of a problem with not enough information about this case, so I'll try to summary what I know so far.

1: Two women who had sex with Assange went to the police and were adviced to file charges of rape2: A prosecutor releases the accusations publicly to the press (not a common thing here in Sweden afaik)3: The case is withdrawn because they realize Assange cannot be nailed for rape. The remaining charge is something akin to sexual harassment.4: The rape charges are revived5:...6: Profit?

No seriously I'm starting to wonder what the fuck is up with the swedish legal system.

ftfa: "He acknowledges that the allegations might complicate his plans to obtain a residency permit to remain in Sweden, which has broad press freedom laws that could be used to shield WikiLeaks from American prosecutors."

You want to have legal protection in Sweden? We'll give you legal TROUBLES in Sweden! Your move, skinny boy.

Birgitta Jónsdóttirthings are being very seriously taken out of context... i think it is important to note that i am not suggesting that julian steps aside except as a spokesperson for wikileaks while this case is ongoing - it is important the messenger wont...become the message - as it seems then it is obvious that weaving together personal matters of this nature with wikileaks is not justifiable - as someone that has put effort into better support for rape victims and battered women i feel it would be out of character to write the allegations off in this case as a conspiracy - if people find me to be a traitor for not taking sides on such serious matter then so be it. i do not claim that Julian or the women are guilty or innocent until we have all the facts.

So she's saying that Assange should temporarily step aside as spokesman for Wikileaks until the facts of the case have been sorted out. Not quite the earth-shattering denunciation the media has hyped, huh? Of course, I don't see how she couldn't anticipate this kind of reaction from all of Wikileaks detractors in the media. That was just naive.

Other Wikileaks people are urging him to separate this personal situation from Wikileaks. Really? Why? So far, I haven't seen any evidence and so all I know is that I have heard there is a rape and a case of molestation against him. I also know that the charges were initially dropped and I can only assume it was because the evidence is shaky if non-existent.

It seems to me that this has all come about because he is in charge of Wikileaks. If he were to go quiet and let someone else run the show, who knows what they will do? I'm not sure it is in his best interests to disconnect himself from Wikileaks.

Let's see some evidence. Let's get some details. If he was a "nobody" that no one has ever heard of and had nothing to fear from world governments, that would be one thing. But this guy is an enemy to some very powerful individuals and organizations. Remaining in the spotlight is all he has to defend himself at the moment. Asking him to give up his post now would be a problem.

It could be a good opportunity for wikiLeaks to show they are truly committed to posting all information in the public interest by posting the police reports and other documents relating to the case. Redact the potential victims names, etc, and put up something that may be damaging to yourself would really show commitment to the ideals you've espoused, IMHO.

The treatment of Julian Assange, the person, but as conducted by the government in question, is without a shadow of a doubt a subject of public interest. There may be other interests, such as his right to privacy, but the public interest is certainly there, on several levels.

I'm not a conspiracy nut but....If it looks like a horse, smells like a horse, sound like a horse and feels like a horse, it is most likely a horse.Government officials tell directly to the public that if Assange doesn't hand over the files they will get him by other means and one week later you see rape charges.How come there are still people thinking that something might be even remotely true concerning these allegations.

Sure, the allegations could be true, but - Birgitta Jonsdottir is a politician, and like everyone else has a price to do or say anything. It is within the realm of probability that she has been paid to take this highly public stance.

The fact is, a smear campaign is not just a simple accusation (in this case two coincidentally made on the same day), but rather a string of questionable accusations presented to people. Sure each one can easily be disproved in most cases, but if you make enough false allegations and pay a few people (especially those who appear to give credibility to an accusation) then these lies appear to be true.

Does ANYONE actually believe the USA can illegally invade another country, kill hundreds of thousands of people and manage to hide it.... yet would just stop at a simple rape allegation?? Uh, no! It has been widely covered that the US government is actively trying to destroy credibility of wikileaks, and sadly that will involve putting US operatives or paid rats inside wikileaks with the ultimate goal of taking this organization down.

The CIA has set up dozens of puppet governments in similar ways, so taking down an enemy website by 'framing' those who run it will happen. Truth be told, that "Collateral Murder" video makes much of what has happened look like a child's birthday party. For example, the blast and shockwave from the MOAB bomb can destroy about 8-10 blocks radius of a city, and we used these in Iraq... how many people who be disgusted if we saw the aftermath of just one?

True, but its predecessor, the BLU-82 was used in both Vietnam and Afghanistan (retired and replaced by the MOAB in 2008), in Afghanistan one of the reasons for using it was actually to demoralize enemy troops.

I've noticed a difference between some political systems I know best - British, Canadian, American. British and Canadian Members of Parliament, cabinet Ministers, and so on, generally will resign at the drop of an accusation that stands a chance of lasting more than a few news cycles - anything even debatable. If they don't, the PM tends to ask for a resignation. It's nothing to do with guilt; it's about Party Vs. Member.

The political agenda is in the hands of the Party, and even the PM is expected to put it ahead of his own career. You resign, not because you're guilty, but because it's bad for the Party (capital P!) to have the news be about the accusation story. It should be about whatever bill or program they're flogging this week. So the guy resigns, the accusers do a dance of victory - and are staring at another person in the position the next morning, one with the same agenda and probably the same qualifications. It makes it a very minor victory.

(The resigner, by the way, is generally rewarded with the best jobs the party can hand out...and if the problem does turn out to be minor, they show right back up in public office soon after, trumpeting their heroic sacrifice for the team at rallies. Long-run, being a smear victim is probably a career plus...)

American politicians, on the other hand, seem to regard resignation as confession, and fight to the bitter end, past where EVERYBODY knows they're guilty. (OK, Nixon resigned...after his friend Barry Goldwater told him that impeachment was certain and that he had maybe SIX votes in the Senate.)

So she may be just saying "The material's good enough to keep the news filled with police and court statements for weeks or months, so Do The Right Thing."... and there'll just be another Wikileaks rep on the job in the morning.

The blind faith many people seem to put in Assange confuses the hell out of me. He pissed off the United States, so any and all allegations against him are automatically baseless? By those standards, all anti-US terrorists in US history are automatically innocent.

The blind faith many people seem to put in Assange confuses the hell out of me. He pissed off the United States, so any and all allegations against him are automatically baseless? By those standards, all anti-US terrorists in US history are automatically innocent.

Its not blind faith, it just shows how little we all seem to trust the US when so many of us are quick to assume that a rape allegation against an individual the US would clearly like to silence is an attempt to smear their reputation.

Its not blind faith, it just shows how little we all seem to trust the US when so many of us are quick to assume that a rape allegation against an individual the US would clearly like to silence is an attempt to smear their reputation.

It shows how little you trust Sweden too if you think that the state prosecutors in one of the least corrupt countries in the world are on the CIA payroll and that Sweden would surrender its own sovereignty in such a blatant way in order to please the US.

Seriously, you just came out and said it out loud? You don't even bother to hedge or attribute the statement to "in times of war" or something. Well, I will admit your bluntness is refreshing, and in turn I will be just as blunt. I disagree with you 100%. National security is not our one and only core value. Many, many other values must come first. This is especially true when you are only talking about a _potential_ threat to national security not even a fully realized one. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't deserve the freedom and benifits of a modern society because they have a barbaric mindset.

IIRC, it was Rumsfeld that initially bluntly put the phrase "paradigm of prevention" out there into the open- of course, this deceptive model of targeting whoever they wanted was nothing new- but it was time to introduce a new platitude into public that few people would notice, and even fewer would care.

The 'shift' that the paradigm of prevention brings to our countries practices in dealing with such potential risks is this philosophy-'Not having proof that we are going to be attacked is not sufficient reason for not taking action against the potential assailants.'

It is, in a very real way, guilty before proven innocent.

In the past year or two I have felt a glimmer of hope, though... 7-10 years ago when I talked about this sort of stuff in public, people freaked out and thought I was either insane, mentally handicapped, emotionally distraught, or trolling irl... but in the last 2 years I have seen somewhat of an awakening amongst all classes of people- from teachers to law enforcement to businessmen to blue collar workers to local government, people are starting to wake up and realize that this problem will not be solved by appealing to the political self proclaimed clerisy. The question is, will it turn into a full fledged witch (terrorist) hunt between citizens or will the citizens realize their enemy is more than a person, or a group of people, or a country, or even a political/religious ideology.

When it comes to national security, nothing is sacred, unfortunately.

If that is your take on it, the 'terrorists' have already beat you. If nothing is sacred, then, not only has national security has failed, but so has the dream that filled our founding fathers with such zeal. Death is nothing new. People have been dying for a long time now. What is important is that people die for something that they believe in, something that betters mankind, something that leaves a legacy to be commended and honored by posterity. If our "national security" is just making sure that we put bullets in people trying to get across our land without protecting us from the dangers already in our government then our problem is far greater than can be solved, which is what I am suggesting.

Don't be so quick to resort to action. Never write anyone, or any party, a blank check of support for spouting off a few obvious statements that anyone can agree on without digging deep into the details of the "solution". Case in point:

“Law and order”... is a phrase that has appeal for most citizens, who, unless they themselves have a powerful grievance against authority, are afraid of disorder. In the 1960s, a student at Harvard Law School addressed parents and alumni with these words:The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might. And the republic is in danger. Yes! danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without law and order our nation cannot survive.There was prolonged applause. When the applause died down, the student quietly told his listeners: “These words were spoken in 1932 by Adolf Hitler.”

That Hitler quote is interesting, and it makes me wonder why general education does not generally involve reading the speeches of evil people who were never the less skilled at persuasion. I would want such a thing as a way to immunize the citizens against demagogues, but then I realized that another outcome could be that we'd have a lot more nazi's in the world today. Though perhaps even that price would be worth it as long as the average citizen got a bit wiser to political manipulation.

That guy quoting Hitler is itself a good example of propaganda, as by associating phrases or ideas with Nazism, you can make people think that those ideas are themselves evil, completely independent of whether they are or not. For example: is law and order something a country NEVER needs? I'd say that overall it's a good thing, in fact. What sort of evil or not comes from the actual details of doing that - not simply saying some words that Hitler once said. So anyone could call for law and order, but if simply saying "Hitler said it" was a valid argument, then most good ideas are forfeit.

I'm surprised so few people are intelligent enough to understand this. But people's brains turn off when Hitler is involved. It's almost as bad as bringing up child porn.

How about innocent until proven guilty? And yes, that would apply to anti-US terrorists as well (even though they never get a trial). Furthermore, given that Assange has trouble with the US military machine, perhaps a more careful examination process would be in order before shouting denigrations to the media. The whole case has been handled rather poorly by the swedish justice system, when it was clear from the start that a modicum of tact would be required to avoid this media shitstorm.

The whole case has been handled rather poorly by the swedish justice system, when it was clear from the start that a modicum of tact would be required to avoid this media shitstorm.

It is entirely possible that those in the Swedish justice system did not care if they avoided a shitstorm. Not everyone buys into the PR hype of the modern information era, some people just do what they want. It is also possible that they knew it would start a shitstorm and handled it specifically in a way that would encourage such a thing.

I know civics education in this country is complete shit, but I do seem to recall something about how we afford people the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law. For all we know, this woman is behind manufacturing accusations against Assange so that she can step in.

I'm not accusing her of doing so. I'm simply saying that she could just as well be using it as a tool for manipulation. The guy could be a complete jack-ass for all I know. I also know that it has no impact on the value of the service he started and the information that he has revealed through it.Dismantling him doesn't invalidate that knowledge.

It is sad that mere accusations are enough to demand that people step down from just about anything. His life is going to be forever altered for the simple fact that he was accused, even if there ends up being no basis for it. Even if it turns out that it was just the manufactured story of a ruthless reporter and a pissed off chick.

Considering the stories we hear all the time these days about how such accusations are often entirely fictional -- such as "I ditched a night out with my friends for drinks with this guy I met, so to deal with their scrutiny over me ditching them, I invented a story of rape and got a man jailed for a crime he was innocent of", I am not willing to ever assume guilt whatsoever.

Just because you may hate anyone who questions the United States of Amuricah, because they're freedom-hating assholes who want our heroic baby-rescuing, never-in-the-wrong troops to die . . . doesn't mean they're also guilty of rape or any crime.

It is sad that mere accusations are enough to demand that people step down from just about anything. His life is going to be forever altered for the simple fact that he was accused, even if there ends up being no basis for it. Even if it turns out that it was just the manufactured story of a ruthless reporter and a pissed off chick.

It has been mentioned that he has been dragging wikileaks into this personal situation, for example using the wikileaks twitter feed to promote the idea that he is innocent and the US is running a smear campaign. I do not think he would be asked to step down, especially so publicly, if he had kept his personal life and wikileaks separate.

It is sad that mere accusations are enough to demand that people step down from just about anything. His life is going to be forever altered for the simple fact that he was accused, even if there ends up being no basis for it. Even if it turns out that it was just the manufactured story of a ruthless reporter and a pissed off chick.

It has been mentioned that he has been dragging wikileaks into this personal situation, for example using the wikileaks twitter feed to promote the idea that he is innocent and the US is running a smear campaign. I do not think he would be asked to step down, especially so publicly, if he had kept his personal life and wikileaks separate.

Yes, HE has mixed wikileaks with this rape charge. Not the newspaper that published the story in the less-than-24h time period during which the charges stood. The guy who hadn't even been told there were charges against him before the article was published. It's all his fault. He was clearly asking for it... the way he dresses...

"...we afford people the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law..."

That's a pretty widely misunderstood principle though. It defines an epistemic stance that the judge and jury are supposed to adopt. They are supposed to disregard, or screen off, any beliefs they had regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused prior to the trial and consider only the evidence given in the trial. Obviously this doesn't apply to the prosecution, witnesses, or complainant though because they are all expected to act according to their sincerely held beliefs either way.

As for the media and public at large, the legal principle of presumption of innocence just doesn't apply. You could argue that there should also be a general social norm requiring that people unconnected with the case presume innocence, but it's hard to see why that should be the case.

It should be the case because accusations are cheap, and when it comes to an allegations of a sex crime a guys life is pretty much done as soon as it hits the paper. His accusations is front page news, while is exoneration is barely a foot note on page J-57 in the weekend paper. False accusations are hard to prove, and if charges are withdrawn on a he said/she said, it's unlikely the woman will be prosecuted for it.Sex crimes should have a total publication ban on the identity of the accused and victim unle

I know civics education in this country is complete shit, but I do seem to recall something about how we afford people the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law.

You are right in that your civics education is complete shit. We don't presume innocence. If we did, then bail would not be necessary. After all, why would you hold someone in jail when you presume them to be innocent? You'd not arrest them, as you wouldn't arrest someone who is innocent. But, as you said, your civics is shit.

The presumption of innocence is a guideline for how to treat the accused while in the presence of the jury so as not to bias the findings. No more. There is no "civic duty" to presume someone innocent. OJ is a murderer. I can believe that before he's arrested. I can believe that during the trial. I can believe that after he's found not guilty. I have no duty to presume him innocent. The court is supposed to do so during the trial, but has no duty to do so before or after the trial.

Add that to the fact that "innocent" has no legal meaning. You don't find someone innocent, and the courts never make any ruling whatsoever on the "innocence" of anyone. But if your civics education wasn't shit, you might know this. If you'd like, I'd be glad to give you a civics education so you can learn the difference between being innocent, being presumed innocent, being guilty and being found guilty.

I know civics education in this country is complete shit, but I do seem to recall something about how we afford people the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty in a court of law. For all we know, this woman is behind manufacturing accusations against Assange so that she can step in.

Wikileaks isn't a government and may associate or not with whomever they wish on whatever (otherwise legal) terms they wish. Assange can sue if he doesn't like it. Stop conflating the obligations of a private entity with government.

His life is going to be forever altered

Assange stepped in front of this train. Don't ask me to admire him for his 'courage' and then invoke my sympathy when he gets wrapped around the gears he chose to fuck with, whether it's the US government, a pair of sexy wenches he put the wood to or some exposed collaborator

"He pissed off the United States, so any and all allegations against him are automatically baseless? By those standards, all anti-US terrorists in US history are automatically innocent."

Yes. Is that in the slightest surprising?

Politics is war between cultures and belief systems, not a search for truth or the best way to do things. Damage to ones enemies is literally delectable, and to motivate the masses must be seen as righteous. People don't make war for intellectual constructs, by and large. What men evo

There is prior plenty of proir art of baseless charges and petty harassment in almost the exact same situation with the Pentagon Papers (ie. same as in a leak, not same as in years of petty harrassment as yet). After a lot of resignations and blatant political appointments over the last decade it can be argued that a large portion of the US intelligence community is now far less ethical than it was under Nixon, so Nixon era tricks are not off limits.That is the difference here and is why many are seeing th

In my lifetime I've yet to see a government in this country I'd trust as far as I could throw the Lincoln Memorial (with Glenn Beck's fat, stupid ass crying on the steps to weigh it down even more). Most of our elected officials seem to be concerned with nothing more than protecting their own images, enriching the people who they're getting bri... 'campaign donations' from and passing a bunch of useless bullshit to keep the ignorant masses behind them.

That's not to say Assange didn't do something, just that there it's entirely within reason that this is a smear campaign.

A member of Iceland's parliament and prominent organiser for whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has turned on the site's founder, Julian Assange, demanding that he step down over rape allegations made against him in Sweden.

Jonsdottir, who speaks Swedish, said that she had reviewed Swedish police records and disputed Assange's claim that the allegations were politically motivated, suggesting instead that they may be the result of cultural misunderstanding.

How is it that a politician is reviewing the evidence in an ongoing police case and furthermore, commenting on it in public? In most civilized countries that would be cause for an investigation into the police, and the firing of the prosecutor for not running a tight ship with a clear separation between the judiciary and the executive brances.

This doesn't pass the "smell test." Not one bit.

Did Assange do anything wrong? I don't know - but this sort of tampering by politicians makes it sure seem like someone, somewhere, *is* out to get him.

How did an Islandic member of parliament get access to the Swedish police records in the first place? This is the part that the OP refers to saying "In most civilized countries that would be cause for an investigation into the police".

Sorry but only the "profoundly ignorant" think that free speech is absolute.

Free speech takes a back seat when it directly causes harm, calling "fire" is the most famous example. A politician declaring someone guilty in public is seen in most western countries as causing harm to the process of a fair trial. Such prejudicial pronouncements of guilt by politicians and journalists can see them held in contempt of court. In otherwords politicians and the media are free to make or report allegations but they are not free to pervert justice by conducting a "trial by media".

I don't know if this is how it works in he US but it's certainly how it works in many other countries that value the right to a fair trial.

Sorry but only the "profoundly ignorant" think that free speech is absolute.

Free speech takes a back seat when it directly causes harm, calling "fire" is the most famous example.

First of all, do you have any idea how ironic that is, using that argument in this situation? One could say the exact same thing about Assange.

Secondly, according to TFA, the person referenced wasn't saying that Assange is guilty of the sexual assault charges.

Birgitta Jonsdottir told Internet news site The Daily Beast that she did not believe Assange's repeated assertion that the allegations of rape and molestation made against him were part of a US-backed smear campaign to distract attention from documents posted on the site laying bare US involvement in the war in Afghanistan and further promised revelations.

What she doesn't believe is that the allegations were being made because of Assange's decision to leak the Afghan War documents. That's very different from saying that she doesn't believe he's innocent of the charges levied against him in the other c

A member of Iceland's parliament and prominent organiser for whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks has turned on the site's founder, Julian Assange, demanding that he step down over rape allegations made against him in Sweden.

Jonsdottir, who speaks Swedish, said that she had reviewed Swedish police records and disputed Assange's claim that the allegations were politically motivated, suggesting instead that they may be the result of cultural misunderstanding.

How is it that a politician is reviewing the evidence in an ongoing police case and furthermore, commenting on it in public? In most civilized countries that would be cause for an investigation into the police, and the firing of the prosecutor for not running a tight ship with a clear separation between the judiciary and the executive brances.

A politician from Iceland is commenting on a Swedish case, the separation is quite complete.

Check her bio; she's an activist that went into politics after the economic crisis in Iceland in 2009. She's also a Wikileaks spokeswoman in relations to the collateral murder case so I doubt her being an Icelandic politician has anything to do with her interest in Assanges rape allegations in Sweden.

These personal matters shoudl have nothing to do with WikiLeaks. I have strongly urged him to focus on the legalities that he's dealing with and let some other people carry the torch.

I don't think that's an unfair request given the allegations he's facing at the moment.

All we know is that there is an investigation and that someone accused him of something that has to do with sex - what exactly he stands accused of and by whom is anyone's guess. So at this point it's not even about allegations, it's about vague rumors of allegations. And no, in Sweden rape and molestation are very broad concepts that cover very different things than what those words refer to in English, so that doesn't tell us very much. Except that Swedish legislation is bizarre. Back on topic: If I accused you right now of rape, should you then quit your job to spare your company? How would you feel about it if you were not told what the actual charges were, making it impossible for you to even comment on them directly, once you found out about the investigation by reading the newspaper one morning?

She is not commenting on it as an Icelandic politician, which is nothing to do either with WikiLeaks or with the rape case. She is commenting on it as one of the WikiLeaks activists. If she has a reason to think that there is merit to these accusations then it's quite reasonable for her to ask for his resignation.

Having read the article, I see a significant discrepancy between the headline and the text.

Jonsdottir is doing more than "commenting as an... activist". She presumes to speak in behalf of the WikiLeaks network, although her assertions are not corroborated on wikileaks.org.

Wikileaks.org is the mouthpiece of the organization. In the WikiLeaks spirit of full disclosure of primary documents, see the WikiLeaks blog post dated 21 August, 2010 [wikileaks.org] (which, at this writing, remains the most recent).

Also, Jonsdottir cites no empirical "reason to think" the accusation is plausible. When evaluating statements in the media, we must all think critically rather than prejudicially. Look beyond the claims to the evidence.

Your logical flaw is gaping. Intellectual dishonesty in plausible deniability.
I'm going to draw the difference for Your Thickness. Tom said he has a problem with a politician's meddling. Tom did not say he had a problem with the release of Assange's criminal record. Then you unintentionally introduced a red herring laced with sarcasm by confusing `politician's spin` with `released public records`. I pity the world-view your brain has managed to assemble, it must be a confusing place.

Actually why not? Let us see all the information about the case, I'm sure it doesn't hold water. As the parent said, that a politician is rushing an ongoing investigation to bully Assange somehow I think they would be the most affected by total disclosure.

From what's leaked it sounds like it's basically a case of someone sleeping with more than one woman, being sloppy with protection, women getting pissed off and anxious about STD's and involving the Swedish judiciary which gets the brilliant (and internally divisive) idea to use it as a pilot case on whether consent can be considered having not been given, if it was predicated upon the use of effective protection. Which is why you get one attorney saying 'rape!', the next one saying 'idiot, it's barely even minor assault in the worst case, if even intentional', and the third going 'hmmm... interesting theory, lets victimize someone (and maybe save the first attorney) to test it'.

Ah, well, if consent can be predicated upon such issues I suspect we'll get a whole load of 'rape' charges against women who said they were on the pill...

This is an amazing statement. It sounds a lot like something you'd hear some crooked cop say when stopping a black driver in a nice car.

"He's most likely guilty of something".

Considering the enormous motivation of people in power to make sure Assange is put out of business, I'm surprised that this clown show with the rape charges today, no raped charges tomorrow, new rape charges the day after that is being done in such an amateurish manner.

Whatever happens to Assange, I'm sure that the people who will take over operations of wikileaks soon are getting the message loud and clear: Do not mess with those of us in power, or there will be a committed campaign coming at you from all sides, from the police, to press releases, to your personal life.

Yes, the message of how fragile a person's life is comes through loud and clear when you make life uncomfortable for the powerful.

Cardinal Richelieu wrote 'If you give me six lines written by the most honest man, I will find something in them to hang him.' Modern legal systems have had a few hundred years more complexity added since then. It's basically impossible to go for more than a few hours without committing some kind of crime. Assange comes across as an egotist on a power trip in interviews - it wouldn't be at all surprising to discover that he has done something stupid with his newfound fame. Even if he hasn't, the idea that he is wikileaks is likely to harm wikileaks in the long term.

I assume that you're talking about interviews you've read, or snippets of talking head interviews on TV.

It's worth noting that the corporate media hates Assange and has reason to fear wikileaks, almost as much as the powerful elite. I'm not sure you can believe anything that you get from the corporate media when it comes to wikileaks. Just put together half a dozen articles about Assange on the desk in front of you and scan them to see what jumps out. I bet you'll be surprised at an eerie similarity that those articles have to one another. You would think that there'd be at least a little bit of variation in the questions asked and the overall structure and tenor of the arguments made in those articles. They really come across as the perfect inverse of a highly synchronized public relations campaign.

I would bet that if Assange disappeared tomorrow and someone else took over Wikileaks, after a very short time we'd see a very similar story-arc with the person who took his place. Not the same charges, of course, but similar focus on the person instead of the institution. On personality instead of substance.

The Swedish government retracted the charges. Now his own organization isn't backing him up? How much do you want to bet Jonsdottir isn't a CIA plant?

The Swedish government then brought new charges. Now a prominent member of his organization, who is also a member of Parliament in Iceland, is calling for him to step down so that the charges against him stop reflecting poorly on Wikileaks.

... and then you leap to "zomg, CIA plant!" Come on. What's next - claiming the CIA brought down the trade towers with a combination of thermite and a captured spaceship from Roswell that was piloted by Elvis and Lee Harvey Oswald?

Everything Ive read said the charge is because the woman claimed he broke the condom on purpose.

That is not rape.. that is her being too dry, an expired condom, or a non latex condom.

Ive used many condoms in my day, I'm not even sure how one would "break" the condom on purpose while its in use. I suppose its possible that the condom was tampered with prior to being used but that kinda implies that he intended to break before hand.

I think the women found out about each other.. found they wern't exclusive, and decided to muck things up as best as possible.

It's not that 'everybody' thinks the wikileaks case *IS* some kind of CIA attack, just that the CIA has done a LOT, LOT worse to people who the government have decided are enemies of the US state and its interests. Such acts by the CIA are credible. The idea that the US state is above smearing its enemies is ludicrous. That means it is *POSSIBLE* that this is a case of character assasination and black propaganda - not that it's PROBABLE - just POSSIBLE.

It's also *possible* that the women are behaving for any number of ignorant, deluded, malicious or screwed up reasons, as it is that Mr. Assange did the things he's said to have done. But then, if this were a smear, that's exactly what they'd like you to think!;)

It is not uncommon for people in a leadership role to take a "leave of absence" or "administrative leave" when there is an allegation of some sort of impropriety like this. It is usually publicized as "taking time to review the situation with lawyers & mount a defense," by the person taking the leave, and it also sends a clear signal that the "organization" is not embroiled in some sort of tawdry legal battle.

When the case finishes up, if the defendant is declared not guilty, they can step back into their previous role; if they're declared guilty, the organization is not tarred with the "we support and employ rapists/molesters/etc" brush.

If Wikileaks is about more than Mr. Assange's fragile ego, then it's not unreasonable to suggest that he should take an administrative leave from his duties to mount a defense. If this were just an "intelligence operation" to smear Mr. Assange, I think it would be a lot more convincing than the keystone kops operation we've seen so far with charges being levelled and then withdrawn.

No, if he steps down, even temporarily, he would be sending a clear signal that he believes the mission & purpose of Wikileaks is much more important than his own reputation and ego.

And he would give himself time and energy to devote to defending himself against the allegations, wouldn't it be great if he exposed the US government in COURT with evidence they're behind this "character assassination"?

Be honest - no matter what happens, you're going to ascribe it to a conspiracy. Even if he's eventually found guilty and there's solid evidence to support the conviction, you'll simply change your tune to "Yeah, well, the US obviously fabricated that evidence and made the Swedish government dance to its tune."

Then the governments of the world will bribe, torture, threaten, everyone associated with Wikileaks everywhere and it wont just be Julian Assange being charged with rape, it will be everybody associated with Wikileaks being charged with rape, murder, tax evasion, Wikileaks will be treated like a terrorist organization.

How can Wikileaks be saved post Assange? That should be the question. Can Wikileaks as a concept even work? I suspect that against a government as mighty as the US government no matter how adv